Monday, April 23, 2018

All true, and I have joined in the tut-tutting. Yet I can’t help noticing that the people making these criticisms are mostly a bunch of white guys born in the 1960s. I came along near the start of that decade, so I’ve seen a few cultural shifts in my day, and the first one came via early-1970s headlines proclaiming “Baseball No Longer the National Pastime,” after polls showed that football had become America’s most popular sport. Pundits lamented football’s rise (“violence punctuated by committee meetings,” in George Will’s memorable phrase, though he was certainly no stranger to the press box at Redskins games), and indeed, the change coincided with a trend toward greater complication, bureaucratization, and crudity in American life. After brushing off the 1980s soccer scare, football remained unchallenged for decades.

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

. If you link to a headline which is misleading, you bear responsibility for it.

Not sure who posted this, but only dumbasses can be misled by headlines or titles, because headlines those aren't actual facts or arguments. It's literally Homer Simpson-esque; he once expressed disappointment that To Kill a Mockingbird gave him no information on killing mockingbirds.

It was me, and my comment had more to do with just the posting of the headline. It was using the sensational headline as the basis for a screed against some injustice as if the headline were 100% factual and the complete story. Thus:

'UK judge preventing parents from taking their child to Rome for much needed health care", and then mocking the judge and the UK government in general.

JE's not a dumbass, but I think that he's sometimes too eager to believe the bullshit on his twitter feed posted by people who's intent is to rile up the masses by posting misleading and inflammatory links.

No one went to jail in the UK for flipping the bird to a traffic camera, as JE's link title would have you believe. He went to jail because he had an illegal device which disabled the cameras as he drove by. But that didn't stop JE from bemoaning "What the hell is going on in the UK?"

Federal prosecutors argued in a Thursday morning letter that documents seized in an FBI raid on Michael Cohen’s home, office and hotel room are unlikely to contain a large percentage of material subject to attorney-client privilege because two of Cohen’s three clients have downplayed the legal work Cohen carried out for them.

Prosecutors noted that since Cohen revealed that one of his three clients was Sean Hannity, the Fox News host has since said that Cohen has never represented him in a legal matter. Attorneys for the government also cited an interview President Donald Trump, another Cohen client, gave on “Fox and Friends” just a couple hours before the letter was produced in which the President claimed that Cohen only managed “a tiny, tiny little fraction” of his legal work.

Not sure who posted this, but only dumbasses can be misled by headlines or titles, because headlines those aren't actual facts or arguments. It's literally Homer Simpson-esque; he once expressed disappointment that To Kill a Mockingbird gave him no information on killing mockingbirds.

I edited out my own reference to Mr. Simpson. But I do see M's point, even as he is riled.

But a doctor treating Alfie, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said that for Alfie to be allowed home would require a "sea change" in attitude from the child's family, and they feared that in the "worst case" they would try to take the boy abroad.

Well, I agree with you there, but privilege is privilege, isn't it? If Cohen is acting in his capacity as DJT's lawyer and not just as a businessman -- whatever the hell that means -- doesn't privilege apply over all? (I mean, yeah, apart from the third party/L&O kind of stuff.)

It's complicated.

I reiterate what I said the other day, which is that A-C privilege covers communications for the purpose of giving/obtaining legal advice. That's true regardless of formalities like payment or a retainer agreement. But it can be difficult sometimes to tell what the purpose of the communication was. If I'm your lawyer and we have a formal written agreement and all that and you send me over a contract that someone gave you and ask me to look it over, it's pretty obvious -- protected. And if I'm your business partner and you send me over a contract that someone gave you and ask me to look it over, it's also pretty obvious -- unprotected. But if I'm your lawyer and your business partner, and you send me over a contract that someone gave you and ask me to look it over, it's not clear whether you're asking me for legal advice or business advice.

Pham lasted all of one at-bat, coming out of the game in the third inning with a cut to his head. He was in the indoor batting cage getting ready for his at-bat and using a resistance band. His bat snapped off the band, which he called a “hitting contraption” of his design, and cracked him in the forehead.

People are saying that the "government" is making rulings, but the central dispute seems to be between the parents and the doctors. It's not clear to me if the doctors are government employees,

It's the UK. Yes, there's a tiny niche of private medical care, but a safe bet in any situation is that it's a government doctor.

but in any case their professional opinions must be somewhat separate from government policy.

Courts have ruled in the dispute, but those are not exactly "government" decisions, especially not in the British sense where the "government" is the Westminster cabinet. IOW a court ruling in a dispute between two parties is different from a ministerial regulation.

I applaud BDC's effort to try to explain how a government employee going to a government judge to get permission from the government to do something isn't actually a government action, but... no.

Sure. The band I was talking about isn't "stretchy" either and never has been -- though I've chuckled at the confusion from time to time. It's, instead, for stretching. Some resistance bands are indeed stretchy ... but they typically aren't for stretching.

Well, you know what? Today happens to be a day I have it in the office with me. It's a "Stretch Out" (TM) by DKSA (TM). The manufacturer appears to be OPTP, and they can be reached at www.optp.com, or at 800-367-7393. Patent Number is 5624359.

It was made in the USA, so apparently in 2011 the physical therapist who started me on it was MAGA.(*)

As opposed to going to a non-government judge? Or are we throwing the scary "government" as a modifier for some particular point?

Alternatively, the whole reason the Government Doctors have to go to a Government Judge is precisely that the Government Doctors do not in fact have the ability to point guns at the child's family to compel palliative treatment.

Alternatively, the whole reason the Government Doctors have to go to a Government Judge is precisely that the Government Doctors do not in fact have the ability to point guns at the child's family to compel palliative treatment.

I am pretty sure non-government doctors also lack that ability and are also forced to go to judges (Yup, GOVERNMENT judges). However, in order to get as much libertarian goodness in the statement as possible we need to add in "compel government authorized treatment". You know, for additional flavor :)

Doctors employed by the NHS had to take the matter to court to do so. The legal basis for this claim is the Children's Act of 1989, which says the welfare of the child is paramount in such cases

Thanks, Greenback, that's very helpful.

Inevitably I know about the Children Act from a novel, Ian McEwan's of that title from a couple of years ago. It does make the legal situation somewhat different in the UK than here. And I do see how that Act makes the role of families in medical care different in the UK. It would be like a CPS intervention in this country.

Chuck Grassley has removed the provision that Democrats objected to in the Mueller Protection bill and it sounds like the bill is now going to advance out of the Judiciary committee... likely setting up a showdown with the turtle fellow.

That's still a helluva lot more bipartisan than the Pompeo nomination for Secretary of State, where a whole slew of Senate Democrats who backed the Kansan when he was up for CIA barely a year ago now oppose him for Foggy Bottom because... reasons.

Federal prosecutors argued in a Thursday morning letter that documents seized in an FBI raid on Michael Cohen’s home, office and hotel room are unlikely to contain a large percentage of material subject to attorney-client privilege because two of Cohen’s three clients have downplayed the legal work Cohen carried out for them.

Prosecutors noted that since Cohen revealed that one of his three clients was Sean Hannity, the Fox News host has since said that Cohen has never represented him in a legal matter. Attorneys for the government also cited an interview President Donald Trump, another Cohen client, gave on “Fox and Friends” just a couple hours before the letter was produced in which the President claimed that Cohen only managed “a tiny, tiny little fraction” of his legal work.

I am having a hard time grasping the significance of this. Everyone seems to think it's a big deal, and I am not a lawyer, but I understand how the English language is used. Everyone seems to be acting like the statement

the President claimed that Cohen only managed “a tiny, tiny little fraction” of his legal work.

implies that only a tiny, tiny fraction of the documents seized will be privileged. Cohen doing only a tiny, tiny fraction of Trump's legal work is not the same thing as only a tiny, tiny fraction of Cohen's work product is Trump's legal work.

What am I missing, other than the obvious that Trump mangles the English language so poorly that the safe assumption is that usually means the opposite of what he says.

It's the State Department, Mouse, not the Securities and Exchange Commission.

And? Are you saying CIA and State have exactly the same qualifications? That seems doubtful.

Note: Please remember that I have long supported the idea that Trump should have great latitude in who serves in his administration. However, I think your criticism is a bit silly. There are many situations when one could vote for a person for a role at one point in time and then vote against that same person at a later time for a different position.

Oh, and about Trump's Fox and Friends rant this morning. When he was loudly complaining and pouting about Tester repeating unsubstantiated rumors about Jackson "...and none of it is true, yet Tester went on TV and was using words like candy man, and none of it is true", my irony meter went off the charts.

Trump complaining about people repeating unsubstantiated rumors and using derisive nicknames. What a day.

For the record, I thought Tester was out of line there, but I'm a normal person. Trump, alone among all 7 billion people on earth, has no standing to criticize and complain.

Canada and Britain have reached a formal agreement on ownership of the Franklin expedition wreckage which allows the U.K. to keep all 65 artifacts already discovered by Parks Canada's diving teams.

The wrecks of HMS Erebus and HMS Terror, along with any yet-to-be-discovered artifacts, will be formally transferred to Canada and the Inuit Heritage Fund. Canada will not be seeking compensation from Britain for the recovery and restoration the Franklin relics, which cost millions of dollars.

A news release from Environment Minister Catherine McKenna called it an "exceptional gift" and a significant milestone in the Franklin story.

"I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the United Kingdom for this exceptional gift of the wrecks of HMS Erebus and HMS Terror and all yet-to-be discovered artifacts," she said. "Moving forward, we will work with the Inuit Heritage Trust to ensure these historic treasures are protected, and that the intriguing and expanding story of the Franklin Expedition continues to be shared with Canada and the world."

The agreement ensures the historic treasures will be available to Inuit, the public and researchers in Canada and the U.K.

A news release from U.K. Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson called it a "historic milestone" in the long-standing cooperation between both countries on the issue.

"We have deep historic links with Canada and this gift is testament to our prospering relationship," he said. "The story behind these vessels is both fascinating and incredibly important to the history of both our nations. The U.K. joined forces with the Canadian government and Inuit population to search for these ships for 172 years and I'm delighted they will now be protected for future generations."

Both sides announced in October 2017 that ownership of the mid-19th century ships HMS Erebus and HMS Terror and their contents, legally owned by Britain's Royal Navy under international law, would be formally transferred to Canada, but details of a formal agreement had not been worked out.

Officials have been in negotiations since May 2016.

Canada and Britain signed a non-binding deal in 1997 — before the wrecks were located — that confirmed the Royal Navy's ownership but committed Britain to transferring ownership to Canada eventually.

A Parks Canada document obtained by CBC News under the Access to Information Act said those costs would be difficult to quantify.

The government of Nunavut has also laid claim to ownership of the Franklin ships and artifacts.

Nunavut was able to exercise some control over the underwater archeological site where HMS Terror was found — in Terror Bay, off King Edward Island — because Parks Canada divers needed permits from the government in Iqaluit to investigate the sunken wreck.

The federal cabinet later declared a 57.8 square-kilometre area around HMS Terror part of a protected National Historic Site, which effectively removed it from Nunavut's jurisdiction and gave the wreck legal protection from souvenir hunters.

The seabed wreck of HMS Erebus, discovered further south in 2014, was given such federal protected status in 2015.

The Royal Navy mounted the 1845 expedition to find a northwest passage under Sir John Franklin. All crew members died after the two ships were trapped by ice, though their exact fate has remained a mystery.

To be a CIA agent vs. ambassador, probably not. To run the agencies? Seems pretty similar.

Which still gives room to change from "barely yes" to "barely no". I personally would give Trump latitude in this matter, but have no problem seeing possible reasons for going the other way. And the Secretary of State doesn't just run State, they are in many ways the US Ambassador/Diplomat to the world, which seems plenty different from running the CIA.

Backtrack noted.

You are imagining things again.

EDIT: My suggesting a clarification of your views can't really be a back track on my views. Pretty much by definition.

How much longer does the GOP have to suffer through Joe Manchin forcing Don Blankenship to use rhetoric and tactics that tickles the GOP base sweet spot?

Poor Zonk was so looking forward to Manchin running against Blankenship, but since it looks like Blankenship will finish third in the GOP primary, Zonk's material has been significantly devalued and he's rushing to get some use of it before it becomes totally obsolete.

To be a CIA agent vs. ambassador, probably not. To run the agencies? Seems pretty similar.

Ugh. It's not. Not. Even. Close. That you think it is is highly disturbing and speaks to how devalued the work at State is under Trumpism. It's an absolutely awful nomination, even worse than Tillerson. I long for the days of Colin Powell or James Baker. Certainly "hawks" by most reasonable definitions and nominated by GOP regimes but competent, seasoned statesman with diplomatic chops.

Mike Pompeo and Bolton as SoS and NSA respectively is something no citizen of earth should consider tolerable. Eventually a crisis is going to happen and these are not the calm, capable hands needed. Especially -- ESPECIALLY -- with the dotard that is POTUS.

So you're saying that Pompeo isn't calm or capable... but it's okay for him to run the CIA?

It is still not binary. A certain amount of paranoia is probably useful to the SoS, but it is much closer to a necessary when running the CIA (and the reverse could be said about diplomatic ability). One could have the right amount of paranoia and just enough diplomatic ability to be an acceptable fit for the CIA and not for State (too much paranoia, not enough diplomatic ability). The jobs are different.

Poor Zonk was so looking forward to Manchin running against Blankenship, but since it looks like Blankenship will finish third in the GOP primary, Zonk's material has been significantly devalued and he's rushing to get some use of it before it becomes totally obsolete.

I have to admit the humor value of dude just out of the slammer as the GOP nominee was pretty high, so from that perspective we will all mourn if His Criminalship finishes third.

The government is attempting to override the parents' decision regarding the treatment of their child.

"The government" is doing no such thing - the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary have (correctly) not even commented on this case, to the anger of one of our Fox News analogues (yes, it's a newspaper not a TV station but they share the same attitude to facts).

Of course, I never said the two positions were exactly the same, only that Democrats offered little in the way of substance to justify their no votes.

A lack of justification offered doesn't mean there is no justification.

Put another way, do you agree that a Senator could be perfectly justified in voting yes for CIA at one point, and then a year or so later voting no on that same person for State? (Ignore in this hypothetical the specific person).

What am I missing, other than the obvious that Trump mangles the English language so poorly that the safe assumption is that usually means the opposite of what he says.

If the materials Mueller seized aren't privileged, that may be bad news for Cohen, if they are incriminating, but not necessarily for Trump. So far, the publicly available info, including the statement of the SDNY U.S. Attorney's Office in open court, indicates that Cohen's business dealings are the focus of the investigation, but AFAIK, there haven't been any reports linking Trump to Cohen's non-attorney business deals. Furthermore, if this is all about Cohen's business deals, that doesn't provide any basis for negating the confidentiality privilege for unrelated matters involving his law practice. So, those trumpeting these developments as bad news for Trump are getting ahead of the facts and jumping to conclusions [again].

Thanks for the link, that was an interesting read. However, the summary of the study in the article is very misleading. There is a clear connection between regulations and lost productivity and growth, supported by numerous studies. Goldschlag and Tabbarok added very little to that conversation with this particular study.

The study looked for evidence that, in addition to hurting productivity and growth, regulations also hurts "economic dynamism". The study stated that the decline in economic dynamism is associated with declines in productivity and growth, so they hypothesized that there was a link. They were not able to support that hypothesis with their analysis of the data from RegData. But that's a far cry from saying that regulations don't hurt growth or productivity.

The Royal Navy mounted the 1845 expedition to find a northwest passage under Sir John Franklin. All crew members died after the two ships were trapped by ice, though their exact fate has remained a mystery.

SPOILER ALERT!!!

Ice monster, duh.

/SPOILER ALERT!!!

Off to listen to some Stan Rogers ...

How then am I so different from the first men through this way? Like them, I left a settled life, I threw it all away. To seek a Northwest Passage at the call of many men To find there but the road back home again.

So are those questions central to all medical treatment? And how is actively taking measures to summarily kill someone "in his welfare?"

I'm not the one pushing silly hard against two millennia of Western medical ethics and practice.

I think they're always central, though they're often non-concerns because the treatment is helpful/effective, and will result in an improvement in qualify of life. Indeed, when something does neither, I'm skeptical it's even right to call it medicine.

Although it's often illegal, it's not uncommon in Western medicine to kill someone who has no hope of recovery and terrible quality of life. Assisted suicide in legal in Canada, Switzerland, and the Low Countries, and some states have laws to allow it. I would guess that gray cases come up a lot in other places (though my firsthand knowledge is limited to Canada).

And really, the ethics have always allowed for letting people die when you couldn't actually help them. Which is what we're discussing. Someone you can't help, but can only contribute to harming.

Put another way, do you agree that a Senator could be perfectly justified in voting yes for CIA at one point, and then a year or so later voting no on that same person for State? (Ignore in this hypothetical the specific person).

Remember that recent Florida Federal District Court felon disenfranchisement decision? The Judge, somewhat creatively, tried to get around the numerous precedents upholding the constitutionality of felon disenfranchisement statutes by finding that Florida's process for considering requests for restoration of voting rights was unconstitutional. Some here touted the decision as potentially significant to the composition of the electorate in future elections. Well, not surprisingly, the 11th Circuit has stayed the District Court decision, finding that Florida has shown a likelihood of success on the merits in its appeal. The District Court decision is likely to be a goner. The precedents are pretty clear, so any change to felon disenfranchisement laws, in Florida or elsewhere, would seem to require legislation (or referendum/initiative where available).

You love this ####. It's like the three horseman coming for Iran now with Pompeo, Trump and Bolton. Can't wait for the airstrikes! Hell, according to Pompeo it will just accelerate the rapture anyways, now that the embassy is moved we can get on with it.

Bunch of ####### loons straight out of Kubrick central casting for Dr. Strangelove are in charge. Awesome. And Hillary was the hawk. God, what a ####### ironic world.

I should have known better too. I went to see Titanic in its initial theatrical run with a bunch of millennials. I'm afraid I let the cat out of the bag then as well. Ruined it for a few of them. As the ship was filling up with water up on the big screen, I got an elbow to the ribs, "Thanks Greg! I'd be asking myself if they're going to be able to fix the boat, but thanks to you...I ALREADY KNOW!"

I was going to reply that seeing Kate Winslet nude was all the entertainment value any red-blooded man really needed, the rest was just window dressing, but you know how university students are. Even in 1997. Even at Circumpolar U. Patriarchy this, male gaze that. So I kept it to myself.

You love this ####. It's like the three horseman coming for Iran now with Pompeo, Trump and Bolton. Can't wait for the airstrikes! Hell, according to Pompeo it will just accelerate the rapture anyways, now that the embassy is moved we can get on with it.

Bunch of ####### loons straight out of Kubrick central casting for Dr. Strangelove are in charge. Awesome. And Hillary was the hawk. God, what a ####### ironic world.

In fairness - Jason is right...

Bolton explicitly said recently that he'll be dancing on the streets on Tehran by 2019... that won't be possible if he nukes it.

So take heart, he's not looking to liquidate a few million.... just a few hundred thousand.... and spend another couple trillion... and few thousand more GIs... no word on what we'll be doing with this set of candy and roses - we're still allocating the last batch from Iraq.

Thanks for that link to the twitter thread on Alfie Evans, manchestermets. It is very helpful. The Secret Barrister immediately distinguishes between government and courts, which is not even an esoteric British distinction; we make it all the time in America. Nor (as the Barrister notes) are the doctors following government orders (though they are NHS employees); they are giving medical opinions as any doctor would anywhere.

"Government" in the libertarian sense means anyone who's ever received a tax dollar, though, so I can see the confusion :(

Just the gift for your liberal friends - Eco-Warrior Shower Curtain Forces You Out Of The Shower After Four Minutes. Surely the environmental activists will use this product voluntarily before trying to make it mandatory for all. Photo at link.

Just the gift for your liberal friends - Eco-Warrior Shower Curtain Forces You Out Of The Shower After Four Minutes. Surely the environmental activists will use this product voluntarily before trying to make it mandatory for all. Photo at link.

Just the gift for your liberal friends - Eco-Warrior Shower Curtain Forces You Out Of The Shower After Four Minutes. Surely the environmental activists will use this product voluntarily before trying to make it mandatory for all

I may want to buy that for my daughters. They have never experienced a short shower. I am not sure of their political leanings, but they are sponging off me, so communist is a good guess.

Until you go full hippie and don't shower at all, you're really just a poseur.

My shower broke a few months ago and I've been too lazy to fix it*. So it's been all baths, which I haven't taken in ages.

*Though to be fair the problem is that the threading on the faucet has totally worn away. So whenever I redirect the water to the shower head, the pressure blows the faucet off at extreme velocity. From what I could tell, no one has made this particular style of faucet head in 60 years or so...at which point I decided I liked baths after all.

Surely the environmental activists will use this product voluntarily before trying to make it mandatory for all. Photo at link.

That's a European link. Funny pictures, but presumably the market there is based on the size of one's water bill and not on being an 'environmental activist'. Thirty years ago, we had visitors from France stay at our home for a couple of weeks one summer. When they took showers, they wouldn't run the water continuously. They'd turn the water on, get wet, turn the water off, wash, turn the water on, rinse, turn the water off, and repeat as needed. It was very strange. We tried to tell them that they could leave the water on, but they were too used to it.

#959:Remember that recent Florida Federal District Court felon disenfranchisement decision? The Judge, somewhat creatively, tried to get around the numerous precedents upholding the constitutionality of felon disenfranchisement statutes by finding that Florida's process for considering requests for restoration of voting rights was unconstitutional. Some here touted the decision as potentially significant to the composition of the electorate in future elections.

There's a ballot initiative on this year's Florida ballot that would circumvent all of this, by going over the outgoing Governor's snakehead and restoring felons' voting rights. Polling from two months ago showed the measure passing, 67% to 27%.

As for the composition of Florida's electorate, only a fifth of Florida felons are black; 75% are white. Though most voter suppression efforts are about nibbling at the margins, anyone expecting/panicking over a sudden "Law and Order" sound effect shattering Florida's electoral balance when felons start voting again is not very likely to get what they desire/fear.

"I want to thank "Fox and Friends" for having the president on this morning to talk about our case and Michael Cohen. The president's statements this morning are very, very damaging to him in our case, because it directly contradicts what he said on Air Force One relating to his knowledge or lack thereof the agreement of $130,000. It is going to add considerable momentum to our efforts to depose the president and place him under oath, because now we have two contrary statements, made within the same month, relating to what he knew about the agreement, what he didn't know what his relationship was with Michael Cohen and we're going to utilize that statement today to argue for his deposition.

... It's difficult to prove the party admissions because you don't have video or audio tape. In this case, we do.""

Is it just me or are the "Gregs" a bit tense with each other today? ;)

Hey, I was just extra nice to him in the other thread.

I typed out a whole message calling for his post on pie crusts to be deleted because it's the POP CULTURE thread, not the BAKING thread.

But I decided to give him a pass.

You should start a gofundme. "Hire Mr K a plumber." I'm sure with the generous support of the Primates, you'd have enough money in no time.

The property manager would likely fix it for free (they have in the past), but they fixed my lock a few months ago and I'd hate to hassle them again. Inconveniencing myself rather than imposing on other people (especially when the imposition is entirely in my imagination) is how I keep my moral superiority in such pristine condition. It's much easier than actually acting morally.

President Donald Trump admitted on Fox News that he's been too busy to get a birthday gift for his wife, first lady Melania Trump, who turned 48 years old Thursday.

When asked during a telephone interview on Fox & Friends what Trump bought the first lady for her birthday he responded with a laugh," Well, I better not get into that 'cause I may get in trouble. Maybe I didn't get her so much."

Trump added that he did get the first lady "a beautiful card and some beautiful flowers."

"You know, I'm very busy to be running out looking for presents, OK?" Trump said.

I mean, after "executive time" and golfing, who would have time left for something like that???

The government is attempting to override the parents' decision regarding the treatment of their child.

"The government" is doing no such thing - the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary have (correctly) not even commented on this case, to the anger of one of our Fox News analogues (yes, it's a newspaper not a TV station but they share the same attitude to facts).

Unless "the government" is just being used as a UK term of art here, the government is doing every such thing. The people doing this are all government employees. They're all acting within the scope of their government jobs. Or, in other words, the government. Your English barrister's twitter thread suggests that the government isn't a party to the proceedings "because the name of the relevant government minister (Secretary of State for Health), does not feature" in the caption of the lawsuit. But you know what does feature in the caption of the lawsuit? The "Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust." Remind me what the NHS is? A private business? An association of hobbyists? No -- it's the government.

My favourite bit is where Alfie Evans's parents' lawyer submits to the court that his best interests are not relevant, which the judge describes as "a startling proposition".

Actually, it's a far more startling proposition to suggest that "best interests of the child" is the right standard to apply. To quote the U.S. Supreme Court -- the issue is different, but the point is the same: "It is not within the province of the state to make significant decisions concerning the custody of children merely because it could make a `better' decision." That does not mean that parental rights are unlimited, but it does mean that "Our choice is better than yours" is not enough; the state has to show that a parental decision is harmful to a child. (U.S. courts apply (in theory) "best interests of the child" to resolve disputes between parents, but not to simply override parental wishes.)

we had visitors from France stay at our home for a couple of weeks one summer. When they took showers, they wouldn't run the water continuously. They'd turn the water on, get wet, turn the water off, wash, turn the water on, rinse, turn the water off, and repeat as needed.

I must be French, I always shower like this. I don't see any particular value in using 20 gallons of water to do a job that can be done with 6. YMMV

I must be French, I always shower like this. I don't see any particular value in using 20 gallons of water to do a job that can be done with 6. YMMV

A typical shower uses 2 gallons per minute. I rarely shower more than 5 minutes. I do keep the water running, as it keeps me warm and sometimes i just like the soak.

I hate baths. A couple of the places I lived in in Europe only had a bath (with the handheld phone thing). I don't like soaking in dirty water and it seems like a waste of water. It also took a while to fill up the tub, and rinse it out after. I showered at the gym as often as possible.

More Judicial Nominations today, Three Circuit Court Nominees & Six For Lower Courts. Looks like a well-qualified group at first glance.

Since I have to appear before them, I generally don’t publicly comment on local federal judges, but Judge Sullivan (the nominee to the 2nd Circuit) has been an excellent judge in the SDNY. (No, Andy, I have no idea about his ideology.)

I must be French, I always shower like this. I don't see any particular value in using 20 gallons of water to do a job that can be done with 6. YMMV

You have to understand that in America, there exist people who are so enraged by the idea of conservation and doing ANYTHING, however voluntarily, however suggested, however implemented, to avoid wasting resources or otherwise positively impacting the environment that this is a really a thing.

Thanks for the link, that was an interesting read. However, the summary of the study in the article is very misleading. There is a clear connection between regulations and lost productivity and growth, supported by numerous studies. Goldschlag and Tabbarok added very little to that conversation with this particular study.

The study looked for evidence that, in addition to hurting productivity and growth, regulations also hurts "economic dynamism". The study stated that the decline in economic dynamism is associated with declines in productivity and growth, so they hypothesized that there was a link. They were not able to support that hypothesis with their analysis of the data from RegData. But that's a far cry from saying that regulations don't hurt growth or productivity.

The full study is here (pdf).

ALL regulations? Traffic laws? Counterfeiting laws? Shoplifting? They ALL hurt productivity and growth?

In addition, there are other laws that may hurt productivity and growth. But we don't form a society to maximize productivity and growth. I'm sure it costs money to make things safer. It's for the betterment of society.

It’s not like burning gasoline in your car; the water doesn’t get used up.

Yes, water doesn't get "used up." It does, however, get soap and hair and body oil and dirt in it, which takes time to get cleaned out as it goes through the natural cycle. Which renders it temporarily unavailable for stuff like drinking. In most circumstances, not a huge deal, I agree, but as I said, it doesn't (to me) add any value to use more rather than less.

And of course, you are paying to heat the water. The tank at our summer place is not terribly large, so if you have 3 or 4 people needing to take a shower and one of them goes for 15 minutes, the polite guy who said "oh no, you go first" ends up rinsing in cold water. Not saying my wife ever did that to me, you understand...

Water has to be treated both before and after use. Even if you live in an area with an abundant supply of fresh water, wasting it still wastes resources. And, as was mentioned, the shower water has to be heated, thus you are (figuratively) burning gasoline.